> What I see in your example is binding, but I don't see with-local-
> vars anywhere. Or did I misunderstand something?
Sorry, I checked the compojure source again and the servlet headers,
cookies, etc are wrapped in a "with-servlet-vars" macro (rather than
with-local-vars) which just uses let. T
On Feb 13, 2009, at 15:35, Adrian Cuthbertson wrote:
> Have a look at compojure - a good example of with-local-vars is where
> a servlet request is executed. Each (get, post) request occurs in its
> entirety on a single (jetty or tomcat) thread. The compojure call to
> the application service fun
Have a look at compojure - a good example of with-local-vars is where
a servlet request is executed. Each (get, post) request occurs in its
entirety on a single (jetty or tomcat) thread. The compojure call to
the application service function binds the http headers, servlet
request parameters, etc,
On Feb 13, 2009, at 13:31, Mark Volkmann wrote:
> What are some reasons to use with-local-vars instead of let or
> binding?
Let just creates bindings for a lexical scope. They cannot be
modified at all.
Binding and with-local-vars deal with vars, i.e. mutable references.
Binding creates a
What are some reasons to use with-local-vars instead of let or binding?
--
R. Mark Volkmann
Object Computing, Inc.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email
